(15-09-2011 10:29 AM)theophilus Wrote: And he has provided enough evidence for those who are willing to accept it. He has promised that anyone who is really seeks him and is willing to do his will can know him.

OH! So he can be proved then. Clearly, we have different definitions of the word 'proof'.

Still, this is a falsifiable claim! Excellent!

Hypothesis: Those who seek Yahweh, will find sufficient evidence of his existence.

Test: Attempt to seek Yahweh.

Expected results: Any honest attempt, no matter how incompetent, will result in the discovery of Yahwehs existence. If no evidence is found, in spite of the honest attempt, the hypothesis is false, though this does not disprove the deity.

Results of Test: Several honest and long worshipping Christians have, after much difficulty in their faith, have concluded that there is no deity. The author of this short paper has also attempted honestly, to see if there is indeed any evidence, and found none.

Conclusion: It is possible to seek Yahweh honestly, and not find him. Therefore, the hypothesis is false. Yahweh may yet still exist, but the proposed method alone is insufficient to discover evidence of Yahweh. Alternatively, Theophillius thinks we are lying, and have not honestly sought out his deity.

(14-09-2011 12:20 PM)Sines Wrote: You say he can't be proved or disproved... then how do you know him?

What I said was that he can't be proved or disproved by the methods that are used to test the truth of statements regarding scientific or historical facts. He can be known in the same way another person can be known; he must be willing to reveal himself to us. And he has provided enough evidence for those who are willing to accept it. He has promised that anyone who is really seeks him and is willing to do his will can know him.

I DID THAT FOR 32 GOD DAMNED WASTED YEARS. IT'S BULL SHIT! You are truly deluding yourself! It's a mental illness. Save yourself!
There is NO god who will save you from that insanity! There is NO god who has promised anything! There is NO god who has provided evidence to anyone! It's in your head!

Sayest the Cowardly Lion....
"I do believe in spooks, I do, I do I do, I do believe in spooks"

Keep chanting that and eventually you'll believe...

"really seeks him"... "is willing to do..." really! REALLY? ... IS WILLING? There! That is the basis of the mass delusion itself! That is the basis of millions of innocent, merciless deaths and the torture of millions upon millions of innocent human beings.

I was a devout believer. I believed and worshiped and prayed and was devoted... and a fundamentalist. Did God decide NOT to reveal himself to me? Was I NOT faithful enough? Was I NOT willing to do his will? Are you sooo much more worthy than I? Don't make those stupid, empty, arrogant, statements to me. I know EXACTLY where you come from. And you sir, are wrong... painfully wrong. ...and you are deluded!

Save yourself... or live the rest of your life a deluded liar.

Have a nice day.

This is BEAUTIFUL! Thankyou defacto 7!

Statements like this are real and from the heart. I have been forthright with Theo too, although not as eloquently. Should we "just come out with it" more often like this when dealing with theists? I think yes. A stop has to be put to illogical circular arguments.

The problem, however, is that we run the risk that people like Theo will get offended, pick up their ball and go play in greener pastures. We will not then have helped him, or stopped him filling innocent children's heads with bullshit.

I am here to learn from everyone how to help theists and hopefully prevent them spreading bullshit. I think that is why most of us are here. We want to make the world a better place. Behind defacto7's rant against Theo is an underlying concern for Theo. Theo probably probably doesn't recognise that though.

So a fundamental question we need to address is how do we get theists to actually listen and be real without pissing them off? At what stage in the discussion do we use an authoritarian "rant" like the above? I would greatly value everyone's opinion on this.

Thanks Mark for your support and maybe a little admonishment. You are right, it was a rant and there is no doubt I was angry. Being confronted by a representation of yourself 25 years earlier is quite a staggering experience when you consider how much I have changed, the work I have put into that change as well as being confronted by the damage I may have done to others through the same methods as I was witnessing. I was pissed.

I am not angry now so much as challenged to stay the course and be vigilant against ignorance. I am not too worried about theo's ego though. I think coddling such logic is a disservice to reason and simply perpetuates it. People who hide behind frail masters are like little children, more like a spoiled child who will scream or whimper, take his ball and go home. I don't really care. If there is ever a chance that they could come out of their eternal childhood fantasies and be of real value to society it will have to start with a wake up call, which is to say a kick in the ass. Otherwise, we are simply spinning out wheels and wasting time.

I think we both know there are a lot more like theo out there and I think most of them we see at the bottom of this page under the heading "User(s) browsing this thread" named Guests. They are the real listeners and watchers being challenged and maybe learning a new way to use their minds or maybe they are leaning how to use their own minds for the first time. The ones who are so outwardly verbal running their 8-track tapes in an endless loop are probably the ones who are less able to change. They already know what to type, what to mimic, and have that last word ready to derail a reasonable argument into uselessness, with that non-concept faith. I would rather think some of those in the lurkers corner are going through that phase of enlightenment called 'being in utter confusion' which is the first step to the path of reality.

As far as the rant is concerned, there is a place for it as long as it has a foundation in real life and tangible substance. If it has a twinge of anger, so be it. If it is all anger and has no place for change or respect, it should probably be curbed a bit. If it's just for the sake of anger then it should be canned.

I hope not to create too much of a problem for some, but then a whole lot of problems for others. The trick will be to make the right choice at the right time.

(17-09-2011 01:06 AM)defacto7 Wrote: Thanks Mark for your support and maybe a little admonishment. You are right, it was a rant and there is no doubt I was angry. Being confronted by a representation of yourself 25 years earlier is quite a staggering experience when you consider how much I have changed, the work I have put into that change as well as being confronted by the damage I may have done to others through the same methods as I was witnessing. I was pissed.

I am not angry now so much as challenged to stay the course and be vigilant against ignorance. I am not too worried about theo's ego though. I think coddling such logic is a disservice to reason and simply perpetuates it. People who hide behind frail masters are like little children, more like a spoiled child who will scream or whimper, take his ball and go home. I don't really care. If there is ever a chance that they could come out of their eternal childhood fantasies and be of real value to society it will have to start with a wake up call, which is to say a kick in the ass. Otherwise, we are simply spinning out wheels and wasting time.

I think we both know there are a lot more like theo out there and I think most of them we see at the bottom of this page under the heading "User(s) browsing this thread" named Guests. They are the real listeners and watchers being challenged and maybe learning a new way to use their minds or maybe they are leaning how to use their own minds for the first time. The ones who are so outwardly verbal running their 8-track tapes in an endless loop are probably the ones who are less able to change. They already know what to type, what to mimic, and have that last word ready to derail a reasonable argument into uselessness, with that non-concept faith. I would rather think some of those in the lurkers corner are going through that phase of enlightenment called 'being in utter confusion' which is the first step to the path of reality.

As far as the rant is concerned, there is a place for it as long as it has a foundation in real life and tangible substance. If it has a twinge of anger, so be it. If it is all anger and has no place for change or respect, it should probably be curbed a bit. If it's just for the sake of anger then it should be canned.

I hope not to create too much of a problem for some, but then a whole lot of problems for others. The trick will be to make the right choice at the right time.

Thanks again Mark

Gee, what happened to the "like" button? I wanted to "like" myself

Hi.....gosh....perhaps "rant" was too strong a word....I had no intention of suggesting you were inappropriately "over the top"....in fact I felt I should have had the guts to say something similar.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with a lit bit of controlled anger. It is real...and people respond to someone who can be real.

Let's remember that theists have often been bought up in authoritarian environments where they are fed a lot of irrational mumbo jumbo and I suspect they are in the habit of not really listening to others. They might need a bit of "biffo" to get them thinking.

They are also not used to examining ideas rationally (as witnessed by Theo's tangential rambling), and are in the habit of avoiding directly answering the big questions (as witnessed by Theo's tangential rambling). A strongly worded reality check might be just what they need.

It hadn't occurred to me there are theist lurkers. Mmmmm. What a shame they're not brave enough to comment. They're learning from me, but I'm not learning from them.

A couple of thoughts came to mind over night. I am concerned for theo as I would be for any person. I have the ability as an atheist to make distinctions in my life. I can separate my atheism from other aspects of my life. My non-theist part though important is just a part of me. To a theist their belief is everything. It's the alpha and omega, the totality of their mind, heart soul. They are taught to integrate every thought and action with their perceived creator. As for me, when I have a discussion, it's an exercise of ideas and emotion the application of which is my own decision and in my own time. I don't usually mean it as a personal attack though it may be meant to attack their idea and may be a ruthless attack at times. In the end it's just a learn/teach process for me; it's not my universe. The problem lies in that when I take a position on a subject it is automatically an attack on the theist's totality. They have no choice but to defend themselves from spiritual death. They may be soft and apologetic about it pretending they are not under attack but just by the definition of their foundation, it becomes a battle for survival, for mental stability. That makes the learning curve more of a mountain climb for both sides.

First, I would just like to say to all I apologize for not responding sooner, but work has been very busy. I will address as much sa I can with what time I have today.

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote:

(03-09-2011 06:10 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote: Would it matter if I gave a reasonable response? Would you then repent (change your mind)?

I think you missed the point, ST Ranger. I'm pretty sure the question isn't "what do these questions mean". Why are there 3 contradictory statements given as Jesus' last words on the cross? This is one contradiction listed among many on this very site.

My response was directed at the point and addressed it specifically.

Perhaps a re-read might help?

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote: Of course you don't see this as a contradiction.

What contradiction? The contradiction arises from a limited knowledge of what scripture actually teaches, therefore misunderstanding is to be expected.

Couple that with an internal desire not to believe and it is easy to discount anything that contradicts one's own beliefs.

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote: I had your faith in my youth and I know how I would've responded, too.

I doubt that very much. While it is probably true that your responses would have parroted that which you were taught, do not confuse that with a personal faith that has been generated by a relationship with God under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Salvation does not end in a rejection of Christ. Nowhere in scripture do we see that a born-again believer ends up as an atheist or one that refutes scripture, or places it on a level of other "holy writings."

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote: But I also would've been just as sure that the Q'uran was completely false and contained contradictory statements, but you're aware that the contradictions that have already been pointed out haven't ruined the faith of Muslims, either.

So as a child, you studied the Q'uran? You were learned in it's doctrine? You were, at such a ripe old age...able to contrast the doctrines taught there and that of scripture?

So, the qualifications stood on are that of a young child?

I personally feel that there are few, even of those who are truly saved and in relationship with the Lord have a limited understanding of scripture. It is because mankind has a natural talent for wanting to do and believe how he wants. Serious study of scripture is required before trying to impress one that they are an authority on the mysteries of God.

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote: They give the same excuses - you can't question Allah, he knows better than you... if you think you've found a contradiction, it's because you don't understand the passage.

But the important thing, is this: when we look at the teaching found in "holy writings" that are supposed to have been given by the same God, and they contradict...one is false.

We can look at what muslims believe about Jesus and see that it is in contradiction to scripture.

As far as the premise being true...it is. This remains the same. If a discussion is sought to examine this premise...very good.

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote: So even if we point out clear violations of logic (such as the age when Ahaziah began to reign... there's no logical way a person can start their reign at both 22 and 42)

It is thought this is a copyist error.

I would give two things to consider:

1-In what way does this make all of scripture unreliable? Is this enough to reject scripture as from God? In scripture we have several places where it is disputed as to what the proper rendering should be. Scribal insertions, for example, are thought to be how some things have ended up in the texts. A misplaced jot or tittle can have a serious impact on a word or passage, so at the heart of this "contradiction is not God making a "mistake," but man.

2-In what way does this alter doctrinal teaching of scripture?

If one rejects God and His word based on something like this, does that really make sense? "I don't believe anything scripture says...because there is a discrepancy in the age of a reigning king?"

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote: But your faith is what keeps you ignorant.

Again, a charge is levied without adequate information. You say I am ignorant, yet you do not know me, nor what I "am not ignorant of."

This is just like thinking one is sufficient in knowledge of scripture because they went to church when they were a child.

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote: You'll never learn anything new if you keep assuming that the bible is inerrant.

I am not "tripped up" by the few places in scripture where there seem to be contradictions. For instance, there is a difference between a man of God in scripture saying something...and God Himself declaring something.

When Satan claimed the kingdoms of this world as his own...were they? See what I mean? Just because an assertion is made, it must be kept in context in order to see if it a general statement, or if it is a general principle.

I am constantly learning new things, by the way. As we all are. The difference is where we go to learn those things. For me, it is scripture. Anyone can justify any belief they have today, there are plenty of sources. But, what is the basis for those sources. Do you continue to study scripture in order to find out for yourself if the justification for your belief is reasonable, or do you simply look for sources that will strengthen what you want to believe? You don't have to answer, but I do ask that you ask yourself this in honesty.

(06-09-2011 03:15 PM)Starcrash Wrote: After all, the Muslims start with the same assumption about their holy book, and that's why they're just as stubborn and unable to see the truth right in front of their eyes.

One thing to consider is this: muslims make the claim that the God of the Old Testament is their god, however, the doctrine is in opposition with the revelation of the New Testament.

You should learn, Mark. If you wish to actually engage in debate, it is only considerate that you do so in a manner that does not create more work for your "antagonist." Though, this is actually a tactic used by those who have limited abilities in debate...

Nevertheless, as I have once before (if I am not mistaken) given instructions for quoting, I will do so again, because it is important to me to talk with you...that is why I am here. That it is easier to do this will help, but, the choice is yours.

Quoting: When you hit the reply button, you will be directed to what I affectionately call the quoting box. You have two options: 1-you can copy and paste these...(quote='Mark Fulton' pid='44554' dateline='1315378159') and (/quote) around the part of the post you wish to seclude, or, 2-just highlight what you want to respond to and then hit the "quote option" given in the tools at the top of the quoting box.

If you have any questions about this, just ask someone that knows how to do this. Once you learn, you will be glad you did.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: As I have said many times, I wish to look at "the basis of belief" in the various belief systems, and that includes the belief system of the atheist. "ATHEISM" DOESN'T HAVE A "BELIEF SYSTEM!".

They believe there is no God...right? They base that upon the "lack of evidence, as well as the "evidence" that seems to deny God's existence, like evolution and "bad things happening."

That is a belief system, whether one wants to "believe" it or not.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: First, for the atheist to discredit Christianity, they should have a firm grasp upon the basis of Christianity, which is scripture. I AGREE. So far I have not seen anyone come forward that has been able to show that they have even the slightest inkling as to what scripture teaches, YOU ARE NOT OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO READ WHAT MANY OF US HAVE SAID.

This is a false charge. Look, if you just want to make statements rather than actually discuss these issues, thats okay. Could just lump them all together in a short statement, though, like you did in the other post?

I have addressed each point...point by point. There is a close association to that which is stated to the response itself.

I have not only read what was said, I responded directly.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: I HAVE QUOTED SCRIPTURE SCORES OF TIMES IN MY POSTS. I HAVE BEEN STUDYING THE DAMN THING FOR SIX YEARS. TO SUGGEST WE DON"T HAVE THE "SLIGHTEST INKLING" IS VERY DISMISSIVE OF YOU. JUST BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM DON"T AGREE WITH YOUR ALLEGED SUPERIOR UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MEAN YOUR OPINION OF IT IS MORE "RIGHT" OR KNOWLEDGEABLE. OK? therefore I have not actually seen a good defense for the belief system of atheism. SEE ABOVE

Wow...six whole years. And that study has led you to curse it?

I do not suggest you do not have the slightest inkling as to what scripture actually teaches...you do.

And as far as my opinion, I will state that it is my opinion when necessary, because my opinion does not change the meaning of scripture. Scripture is not a magic book that can be viewed this way by one and that way by another...it states truths that are either embraced or rejected.

The atheist rejects it, while the religious conform it to their use. It is the born again believer that actually is brought to understand what it teaches.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Neither have I seen a good defense for hatred of Christians. I DEFINATELY DON"T "HATE CHRISTIANS", NOR DO ANY OF THE ATHEISTS ON THIS FORUM.

That is a hollow claim. Would you care to have examples? I hope not...the resources are unlimited, and much time could be spent on that. But, here is an example:

[/quote]
Hi. Don't worry. You're cool. Never underestimate
-how narrow-minded
-how petty
-how stupid
people can be. Particularly Christians. Christianity attracts and fosters these sort of people. People like yourself who genuinely care about truth and others will be rejected by nearly all Christians. Ignorance, pettiness and superstition reign supreme in Christian circles.
[/quote]

What is love, Mark? What is hate? My personal OPINION is that the absence of love is...a form of hate. All question is removed, however, when we see comments such as this.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: All I have witnessed is very much the same thing that disapooints me in Christian forums, and that is both an ignorance of what scripture teaches, NO ST, NOT IGNORANCE, JUST A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION TO YOURS, OK?

No, it is not...okay.

Scripture is not limited to man's opinion...not mine, not yours. We have to exegete to find out what is there, rather than seeing as we wish to.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: as well as a failure to apply even the most basic principles which God's word teaches to man.THAT COULD MEAN ANYTHING, SO MEANS NOTHING

Let me be more specific: you speak about how "petty, narrowminded, and stupid (which is quite different than being ignorant) people can be...particularly Christians."

Lets examine that statement. Does scripture teach people to be these things? What is the conclusion, then? If you run across petty, narrowminded, stupic "christians," are they this way because of scriptural teaching?

That is one point I have tried repeatedly to get across here.

Continued...

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Very disappointing, really, and not just from a Christian perspective, but from a human perspective as well.

It seems to be forgotten at times that both groups wish to convince the world that their way is one of superiority, but those on the sidelines can look at both (inept defenders) and say, "I want nothing to do with that group." I'M SURE THIS GENERALISATION IS SOMETIMES TRUE.

I think it true more often than we would want to admit.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Admittedly I am far more offended by the actions of those who name the name of Christ when they behave in such a manner, and I can say I have done so myself. But, they at least, should know better. OK...GOOD.

My point is this: before saying this is what scripture teaches...find out what scripture teaches. SO YOU KEEP SAYING AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DOES NEARLY EVERY OTHER PREACHER. SO HAS EVERY OTHER PREACHER FOR THE LAST 500 YEARS. WE HAVE ALL READ THE BLOODY BIBLE AND THOUSANDS OF INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT VARIOUS VERSES MEAN AND DON"T MEAN AND WE"RE SERIOUSLY UNIMPRESSED.

Is it considered that you are not impressed because you don't want to be? Isn't this an indication that it makes no difference if scripture is true, or that there might be someone out there that can know what scripture teaches...it wouldn't matter?

So now I ask this: if you really don't care, really do have "a belief system," why are you compelled to respond to my posts?

I would not respond to someone that taught that aliens are real and that they believe in the existence of fairies living in the woods, so, why not ignore me?

Because you feel you have the truth, and it is important to you to justify your beliefs, though it a belief system that runs under the guise of "no-belief."

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Re "Christ spent most of His time with, and among the people...not the religious."
Sorry S.T. , I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, and you are wrong. Jesus associated with his fellow Jews, who were intensely religious. Their religion gave them an identity and a purpose. His closest companions and his family ( mother, 4 brothers and 2 sisters ), were Nazarenes, members of a fundamentalist Jewish sect. The crowds in the Galilean countryside were mainly non sectarian, but had all been indoctrinated with Judaism. To suggest they were not "religious" proves you have a poor understanding of the life and times of Jesus.

Again, revisit scripture. I DON"T NEED TO. I KNOW WHAT "SCRIPTURE" SAYS. I HAVE AN INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOSPELS. HERE IS WHAT I THINK YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD AROUND. SCRIPTURE IS OFTEN "WRONG" IN THE SENSE IT IS NOT A DEPICTION OF TRUTH. GET IT?

You know what scripture says. Okay...what does it say?

I will examine a few of your beliefs as to what scripture says in this post, but, please tell me what scripture says, and why you reject it.

Show me where scripture is often wrong. Do so without the help of the atheist instruction you have received. Do so as one who has actually read it for himself. Pick a passage that you yourself have issues with, rather than the ones supplied by this site.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: While I agree that the Hebrew culture is "intensely religious," intense religion has to be defined in light of scripture and the events within it's pages. NO IT DOESN"T. IT HAS TO BE READ IN ITS CORRECT HISTORICAL CONTEXT. THAT IS WHAT 99% OF PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM KNOW. WE ARE INTELLIGENT AND INTUITIVE AND ARE SEEKERS OF REAL TRUTH, SO WE REFUSE TO BE TOLD THAT TRUTH IS DEFINED BY SCRIPTURE.

Yes...it does. Judaism is a God-given religion.

Read in its "correct historical context, Judaism has been abrogated by the revelation of the New Covenant. Do 99% of the people on this forum knopw that? Do even 5% even know what I am talking about? Do you? Would you care to tell me what the New Covenant is without running to google so you can sound as if you have an understanding based upon bible study? Not trying to sound harsh, but I challenge you to tell the truth as to your knowledge about the New Covenant. You can lie, if you are ignorant of the New Covenant, and I will not know, nor will anyone reading this discussion.

But...you cannot lie to yourself, and that alone will speak to your own heart. You will be forced to admit at least to yourself that there is more information needed to make claims such as the one above.

Of course, if you do know something about the New Covenant...all the better.

Continued...

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Jesus was blasted by the religious leaders for the very reason that He associated with publicans and sinners. His interaction with those who were appointed as "spiritual leaders" can lead only to the conclusion that the tradition of men is frowned upon by God, and man's application of His word is not open to private interpretation, which was the case of these leaders. PROPAGANDA WRITTEN BY ANONYMOUS EVANGELICAL GOSPEL AUTHORS TRYING TO CONVINCE SUPERSTITIOS SIMPLE PEOPLE TO JOIN A CULT.

So those who respond to the gospel are not only petty, narrowminded, stupid, but, they are also superstitious and simple.

It is not propaganda...this is seen very easily in scripture. How one can deny this is amazing.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Here is a point in this statement that can clearly be seen to be in error:

"His closest companions and his family ( mother, 4 brothers and 2 sisters ), were Nazarenes, members of a fundamentalist Jewish sect."

Prove this by scripture. I COULD ACTUALLY, BUT IT WOULD TAKE MANY PAGES.

But you don't mind spending much time on what you want to get across, right? Direct answers to direct questions can be cherry-picked.

It would not take "many pages" to show in scripture the Lord's association with His family. And what scripture has to say will be found to contradict your "assessment."

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: I can save you the time...this is a statemnent of error, showing the lack of familiarity with the events. NO S.T., I HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS STUDYING THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES, SO I FEEL QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE ALLEGED EVENTS. YOU, HOWEVER, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION HAVE ONLY STUDIED THE BIBLE, WHICH YOU HAVE DECIDED TO CALL "GOD'S WORD."

You have spent "many years" studying the works of man, because what you find in the bible leads you to conclusions you do not want to agree with.

Had you spent "many years" actually studying scripture, you would not have made a statement like, "His closest companions and his family ( mother, 4 brothers and 2 sisters ), were Nazarenes, members of a fundamentalist Jewish sect."

Jesus closest companions were the twelve disciples. He had many disciples, but, they could not be considered close companions.

Here is an example of Jesus' assessment of men:

John 2:24-25
King James Version (KJV)

24But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

25And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

[/quote]a tax collector ABSOLUTELY WRONG,[/quote]

Matthew 9:9-10:3
King James Version (KJV)

9And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

Matthew 10

3Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: which some believe Simon to have been a member of the sikaari (have not looked at this a while so my spelling may be off), Sicarriwhich was basically a terrorist group in the habit of assasinating Roman soldiers.WRONG

Says who? Understand, this is something I do not say is a biblical truth, it is something suggested by an historian. So, believe whatever historian you like...it does not change what is actually recorded in scripture.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Not exactly what I would call "intensey religious people." S.T, YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL RESOURCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS CALLED THE INTERNET. WHY DON"T YOU LOOK UP WHO THE NAZARENES WERE? HUGH SCHONFIELD DEVOTED 60 YEARS OF HIS LIFE TO STUDYING THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS; PERHAPS THIS QUOTE MAY WHET YOUR APPETITE...
"“It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church which received them had no other course open than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics.”
(Hugh Schonfield)

Now compare what this man teaches to what scripture teaches, and you will find that Nazarenism is in contradiction to biblical truth.

Those of Nazareth, like every other town and person...denied Christ. To think that because of Christ's association with Nazareth, they have the "inside scoop," is not only ridiculous, it shows a compulsion to commit the very same error which was the error of the Jews pictured most prominently in the Pharisees...in thinking that heritage somehow makes one special.

Bottom line: God has no grandchildren.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Re.."I would agree that Christ did not teach universal love and tolerance. That is a myth." I MUST GENUINELY CONGRATULATE YOU FOR ADMITTING THIS. Well done!

Twice now you have thanked me for stating a simple biblical fact. I hope more congratulations are in store for the future.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Now imagine a world where "Jesus" had preached:
"Listen everyone, we all come from different cultures. We should not condemn others because they happen to have a different belief system to ours.

This itself is in contradiction to one very basic Bible truth that is taught throughout the different Ages: God is One God, and there is no other...HEAR HIM.

Jesus first role is as Prophet to the Nation of Israel. That the religious leaders of His day were in error did not begin when He was born, but can be seen to be a pretty much constant trait in the history of Israel. IF YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE PROPAGANDA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Well, it is the New Testament that teaches how one can be in relationship with God, after all. It is a more complete knowledge of God's plan of salvation.

I do...choose to believe.

(04-09-2011 01:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: The important thing is to respect your fellow man no matter what his religious affiliations are." What a peaceful world we would have!

Don't believe it. Man in his natural state will always find something to fight about. MAYBE, BUT HIS AGGRESSION IS FUELLED BY HIS BELIEF IN HIS, AND ONLY HIS, GOD.
Religion is not always the cause for war. TRUE, BUT IT VERY FREQUENTLY IS!!!

And this is stated by a thorough knowledge of Christians, right? CORRECT! LOL, ALTHOUGH MY COMMENT IS A GENERALISATION.

A wrong one. Christianity teaches man's fundamental need of salvation. Those who forget this forget to have compassion on outsiders.

Please do not think that this generalization applies to all believers.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: And of what scripture teaches is to be the characteristics of Christians? WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE ! LOL! JUST CHOOSE YOUR FAVORITE BIT OF SCRIPTURE.

How about this:

1 Corinthians 13:13
King James Version (KJV)

13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: This is my primary point. Because what scripture teaches about salvation is not known, how to identify who is a Christian and who is not is impossible.

They don't want mosques on their street corner.

While there may be those who protest such things, I yself do not. GLAD TO HEAR IT!Not only am I a Christian, I am an American that believes that all should have the right to believe and worship as they desire. GLAD TO HEAR IT. THAT"S NOT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS THOUGH.

Sure it does. We are commanded to live according to the law of the land (loose paraphrase) as long as it does not conflict with the Law of God.

Our country is one in which religious freedom is an important part of our liberty, and I would not see anyone denied this basic right.

We are not, however, held to the modern understanding of tolerance that would give equal value to belief systems that do not match up with scriptural teaching in this age. We do not even ascribe equality to Judaism, though this religion is God-given and was at one time the highest form of revelation given by God.

If you care to expand on your great knowlege of scripture, and show me how scripture teaches that I am supposed to picket new mosques, I will be glad to discuss this with you.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: I will, as an American, defend the rights of atheists as strongly as those of all believers. I am not one who believes in mob rules or forced submission.

True Christianity cannot be lumped in with aggressive religion, because this is just not taught in scripture. WRONG! SCRIPTURE IS VERY INCONSISTENT. THERE ARE 100's OF BIBLICAL TEXTS PROMOTING AGGRESSION.

Please list them. And keep in mind, you can save yourself some time if you post those that have to do with the New Covenant. Old Testament "proof-texts" will simply be a waste of both of our time.

Now wait: who are you to speak for me? GLAD TO HEAR YOU ARE NOT HOMOPHOBIC.

I am not. But neither am I disposed to water down the truth for the sake of peace and tolerance.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: I am a Christian and I have no problem with gays in my church.

But, this is the basis of belief, founded not on facts, but on assumption. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FOLLOWING QUOTES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT;

To "explain" would take more time than I have right now, but...a few comments:

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders… will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6 9-10, NIV).
"That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their men folk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion." (Romans 1:26-28).

LOOKS TO ME LIKE "GOD" DOESN'T LIKE GAYS.

If God says, "Don't do this," and someone engages in that type of behavior...they are in rebellion to that which God has said.

Now, could you point out where God says in this passage, "I don't like gays," and then reconcile that with "For God so loved the world...?"

You are reading into the text that which is not there.

What we do see is that the wicked (those who are in rebellion by nature[look deeper into the context] to God) will not be part of the kingdom of God. Jesus taught that the kingdom of God, in His day, was internal (in you). Can you tell me how one could be a part of God's kingdom (His servants) when they do not that which He commands? Even in man's kingdoms, those who go against the king's will are dealt with harshly. In our country, treason is punishable by death.

We also see that these are "abandoned" to...that which they are doing. It is their choice, their lifestyle, their rebellion that causes God to abandon them, to leave them in their state.

Now, think carefully: if God abandons them...what was He doing before this? Scripture teaches that He calls to them by His Spirit, and seeks to convict them of their sin, that they might change from the path they are on.

You say you have studied history, can the inescapable fact of Israel's rebellion toward God have escaped you? This aspect of Israel is a fundamental "building block" in understanding man;s condition...and the remedy for that condition.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: I have no fear that the children I have had a hand in raising are suitably educated in scripture as to be able to withstand not only atheistic instruction, but the instruction that is found throughout our culture. I am not worried about them. I AM LOL

You need not fear. I may ask my nephew to come here to talk with you. You will not know who he is, how old he is, or the extent of his education, but...I am confident that he can stand alone in defense of the once delivered faith.

Scripture very much shows women in places of leadership. Just not certain roles that women covet.

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9 NKJ).
“Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-25 NJB). If any women readers are feeling their blood boil, be warned it gets worse.
"As in all the churches of the saints, women are to remain quiet at meetings since they have no permission to speak; they must remain in the background as the Law itself lays it down. If they have any questions to ask, they should ask their husbands at home: it does not seem right for a woman to raise her voice at meetings."
“Similarly, I direct that women are to wear suitable clothes and to be dressed quietly and modestly, without braided hair or gold and jewellery or expensive clothes; their adornment is to do the sort of good works that are proper for women who profess to be religious. During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing, provided she lives a modest life and is constant in faith and love and holiness.” (1 Timothy 2:9-15 NJB).

I think a bigger issue is leadership in the Church. These roles are given to men, as it is here given to man to be head of the household.

You have a problem with this?

(07-09-2011 12:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote: Would you care to show me how I do not believe women should be in leadership roles? I'M PLEASED TO HEAR YOU DONT BELIEVE YOUR BIBLE

Your pleasure will be short lived. Leadership for women is given in instruction of the younger women as well as their children. In the case of the children, this is a role that is really neverending as it is balanced by the command to honour our mothers.

Okay, have to go.

Just know, I do enjoy these conversations, and hope to get back to this, as well as the others who have commented. I would ask again that you learn quoting procedure, as it will save some confusion.

My personal opinion is that you just crashed and burned with your statement about your doubt of Starcrash's former faith but then that's my opinion. I have called people liars on occasion.

I have a couple of questions. Feel free to ignore, answer or crucify me at your leisure.

Is your Christ authoritative, or condescending?

Possible answers are both, neither, one, the other, I don't understand the question, you don't understand what your talking about, you don't understand your own question, a set of scripture verses, a rebuke without an answer, a rebuke with an answer, I refuse to get pulled into a trap, a question for an answer, fill in the blank.... or ignore.

I promise not to reply to your response. Your reply or non-reply will suffice.